Europeanisation, National Identities and Migration ... - europeanization

German trade unions and Polish migrant workers 207
enterprises.’ Consequently the passing of a European ‘Posting of Workers directive’
was demanded (Foundation Stone 94/10: 2). With regard to the requested directive,
it was argued that a responsible European policy for the economy and the workers
of one’s own country cannot mean opening borders and handing over the labour
market to market forces; in particular when other member states secure their labour
markets with regulation of minimum standards (Foundation Stone 94/11: 2). A month
later, a report was published about a federal conference of works councils. At this
gathering, the chairman of the construction trade union again touched on the
problem: ‘With the opening of European labour markets since 1 January 1993,
we face a situation that creates a need for reforms in the area of the protection of
the social flank of labour’ (Foundation Stone 94/12). In March 1995 the German
construction trade union organised a European conference in Bonn, devoted to the
situation in the construction industry and the regulation of the mobility of labour
(cf. Köbele and Leuschner 1995). Here, on the one hand, trade unions repeated the
call to close the border to foreign contract workers from CEE-countries. On the
other hand, the enactment of the European directive or comparable protection
clauses at national levels were demanded with respect to the European posted
workers. When the enactment of the European directive was delayed, the IG BAU
returned to the national arena and finally reached an agreement that statutory levels
of pay and employment would be stipulated by a national law, which would come
into force in 1997 (Worthmann 1998).
Workers from CEE-accession states as interlopers
In spite of the fact that the employment of both categories – CEE as well as EU
workers – caused comparable problems, the coping strategy was different. Exclusive
in the one direction and inclusive in the other. The difference in treatment cannot
be derived from differences in the situation on the construction site. Reports
by trade unions and official authorities substantiate the claim that statutory
conditions of pay and work were not being met by East European or by EU-sending
enterprises (BMAS 1997). The different rhetoric vis-à-vis East European workers
can be explained only with reference to the overarching legal frame, which
permitted the preferred strategy of exclusion only with regard to the citizens of non-
EU member states. With regard to the workers from EU member states, exclusion
had no legal basis. IG BAU was forced to develop new strategies to defend its
members’ interests. The only possible way to act in accordance with the European
political opportunity structure was to attempt to include EU workers as much
as possible in the German social and tariff order, in order to reduce the gap in labour
costs. With the demand for the integration of posted workers into the system
of social protection, the boundaries between domestic and foreign workers
were significantly re-shaped. Following official provisions, posted workers from EU
member states were no longer treated as a category of foreign workers exposed
to open exclusionist claims.
With the national regulations providing equal pay and working conditions for
all workers regardless of nationality coming into force in 1997, a measure was